Judge blocks Trumps EO to end birthright citizenship

[Rawley]

Rawley's opinions about the 14th are only that, and none of them have any status in case law.

The Wong interpretation 14th has not been seriously challenged since Wong. Then again, we've never let 14 million illegals into the country during a single administration.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

... and we haven't this time.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Wong interpretation 14th has not been seriously challenged since Wong. Then again, we've never let 14 million illegals into the country during a single administration.

It will be upheld.

 

[Leviticus]

Then the judge was paid to do so. the 14A says those born in america AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF are citizens. Birthright citizenship violates the 14A.

Anyone who is in the US And can be arrested in the u s is subject to u s jurisdiction.

The supreme court has ruled in the past that the only exceptions are diplomats and enemy soldiers during an invasion.

Now I'm 100% certain that the SCOTUS will change this but until then the judge made the correct ruling.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't think even this SCOTUS will change it, but I recognize they have the legal right to do so.

 

[Rawley]

It will be upheld.

As you have whined, your opinion.

 

[Rawley]

Anyone who is in the US And can be arrested in the u s is subject to u s jurisdiction.

Nope - that's "within the jurisdiction" - the other part of the 14th amendment,

The supreme court has ruled in the past that the only exceptions are diplomats and enemy soldiers during an invasion.

Nope

Now I'm 100% certain that the SCOTUS will change this but until then the judge made the correct ruling.

 

[Care4all]

Nope. The Supreme court can correct the interpretation of the Supreme Court from 100 years ago.

Nope. You are a citizen of the US. You were born here and your father was a US citizen. You applied for Italian citizenship based on your mother's blood.

Sure you are. If you applied for and were granted Italian citizenship, you can be drafted by Italy to fight in their wars. Didn't they tell you that?

That is your interpretation of the 14th.

Your opinion.

FYI - Once again, I thank you for your reasoned discussion, rare among your ideological cohorts.

I'm not eligible for the Italian draft.

At the time of my and my sister's birth, my mother was not a citizen of the USA yet, their law, made us, automatically citizens at the time of birth under their law....if she had pledged her allegiance to the Usa, and been a citizen of both the USA and Italy, then our citizenship would not have been automatic, and she would have had to apply for naturalization papers to make us citizens of Italy... is again my understanding, of the laws at the time we were born.

My mom didn't want us to get citizenship of Italy, reporting to them our birth and their laws did it. My mom would not even speak Italian to us, because she was ignorant on children learning languages when young and was afraid to speak it to us, making us confuse languages....she was wrong, we could have handled learning both...but she just wanted us to learn and speak English....just wanted us to know with certainty, the language spoken here...in America

(My mom spoke and wrote English fluently when she met my dad and married him overseas, and 5 other languages)

The writers of the 14th amendment made it clear that in their other writings, that it was meant for all persons, with few exceptions like Diplomats and their family members.... if it were meant for just slaves, as you see it...then there would be no need to put in, under the jurisdiction of the USA law part. It was put in with purpose, and distinction.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

As you have whined, your opinion.

Far more likely based on the available information.

 

[busybee01]

Feelings driven lib loons and their judicial henchman will continue to rule against Trump in order to continue the smearing
I’m not even sure EO from a POTUS can be “blocked” by Obe piss ant judge

Anything can be blocked by a judge. This is the biggest no-brainer. This was one of the original intents of the law as stated by the amendment's author and has over 100 years of jurisprudence behind it.

 

[busybee01]

It has never actually been adjudicated.

The first part is clear
The last part is clear.

The question is, why were the middle 6 words inserted into an otherwise clear amendment?

The SCOTUS will eventually have to decide that point.

The author of the amendment confirmed that it would grant the children of non-citizens citizenship when this was debated in the Senate. Those 6 words are crystal clear. You don't even have to be a lawyer to understand it. The question is not whether the Supreme Court will decide it, the question is whether they will ignore it and legislate from the bench. If you set this precedent then a president can suspend the second amendment with a executive order. The 2nd Amendment is much more ambiguous that the 14th.

 

[Billiejeens]

The author of the amendment confirmed that it would grant the children of non-citizens citizenship when this was debated in the Senate. Those 6 words are crystal clear. You don't even have to be a lawyer to understand it. The question is not whether the Supreme Court will decide it, the question is whether they will ignore it and legislate from the bench. If you set this precedent then a president can suspend the second amendment with a executive order. The 2nd Amendment is much more ambiguous that the 14th.

Nope

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Time to Stand Up to Self-Appointed Authorities

The Renaissance's Protestant Reformation was all about not letting the self-serving clergy decide ethics for us. Lawyers are no different from those medieval know-it-all elitists.

That makes zero sense. They are defending the laws as written by our policy makers. Maybe those writing laws should be more precise?

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Rawley]

I'm not eligible for the Italian draft.

If you are an Italian citizen, you can be conscripted.

At the time of my and my sister's birth, my mother was not a citizen of the USA yet, their law, made us, automatically citizens at the time of birth under their law....if she had pledged her allegiance to the Usa, and been a citizen of both the USA and Italy, then our citizenship would not have been automatic, and she would have had to apply for naturalization papers to make us citizens of Italy... is again my understanding, of the laws at the time we were born.

My mom didn't want us to get citizenship of Italy, reporting to them our birth and their laws did it. My mom would not even speak Italian to us, because she was ignorant on children learning languages when young and was afraid to speak it to us, making us confuse languages....she was wrong, we could have handled learning both...but she just wanted us to learn and speak English....just wanted us to know with certainty, the language spoken here...in America

(My mom spoke and wrote English fluently when she met my dad and married him overseas, and 5 other languages)

The writers of the 14th amendment made it clear that in their other writings, that it was meant for all persons, with few exceptions like Diplomats and their family members.... if it were meant for just slaves, as you see it...then there would be no need to put in, under the jurisdiction of the USA law part. It was put in with purpose, and distinction.

I never said it was just for slaves, did I? And the contemporaneous writings, debates and laws make a good argument that they intended to exclude the children of those in the illegally

Wong's parents were permanent legal residents.

 

[Rawley]

Far more likely based on the available information.

Nope

 

[WEATHER53]

View attachment 1070409

Amen to that
Nor are you obligated to care for either
Great point

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nope

Yes.

 

[Rawley]

Yes.

Yes.

And yet, you have provided zero support for your opinion.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And yet, you have provided zero support for your opinion.

It's been proved, while yours is always wrong.